Quantcast
Nintendo's Evolution from Gamecube to Switch (...was pre-mediated imho)

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo's Evolution from Gamecube to Switch (...was pre-mediated imho)

Tagged games:

RolStoppable said:
No, it wasn't. This is more like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story where two different philosophies clashed repeatedly.

The GameCube was a response to the underwhelming sales of the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo focused on getting more third party support. They succeeded at that, but ended up selling even fewer consoles than before. The GBA connectivity was more or less a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from PS2 and Xbox by leveraging their dominance of the handheld market, but the idea didn't gain any traction.

With the Wii Nintendo went back to the drawing board and looked at the NES for inspiration. What they came up with was so ass-backwards from what they were supposed to do according to conventional wisdom that it was declared that Wii would be Nintendo's last console. Wii isn't a continuation of the GameCube, but that's exactly what made it so successful.

The Wii U was Miyamoto taking the reins and reviving his beloved GameCube. In Iwata Asks, Miyamoto repeatedly says things along the lines of "the marketing was at fault". Miyamoto seriously believed that the GameCube was correct and only happened to be a victim of unfortunate circumstances. You are absolutely correct that Wii U picks up core ideas of the GameCube, but Wii U was never meant to be a stop gap console. Nintendo expected it to be as successful as Wii at least. Wii U solely existed because of Miyamoto's desire and his belief that the GC was great, and being able to convince the board of directors of this mindset. The same holds true for the Nintendo 3DS; Iwata Asks has Iwata laughing after saying that Nintendo has always failed when they tried 3D stuff, but this time it had to be the right time for 3D.

The first thing Nintendo did with Switch was to remove Miyamoto from the design process. Just like Wii was a rejection of the GC direction, so is Switch a rejection of Wii U. Switch isn't a two-screen console. When Nintendo talked about NX, they made it clear that a drastic change would be coming, and Switch is really nothing like Wii U.

It is correct to say that Switch is deliberate and was carefully planned, but the console is not the result of a roadmap that Nintendo conceived in the early 2000s. It's the consequence of a different design philosophy completely and utterly failing. If this had been planned all along, then Miyamoto would have maintained his position in the company, but he's been put in a better form of retirement.

Whew! I’m glad someone else said it. And you said it a lot better than I would have.

Not to diminish entirely from the work the original poster put into the article; but yeah, I agree with the Rol post I am quoting. I would call the Switch more like the Wii (and NES, by extension), particularly because it is doing something fresh and new with its philosophy; aiming at an uncontested Blue Ocean marketplace with its hybridized approach to playing software. Also a very sleek rectangular design (I’d love to see a white and blue version). It is a more Iwata-style console, in other words.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

In short, the Switch is what the Wii U should have been really



 - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread -
 

   NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Jumpin said:
RolStoppable said:
No, it wasn't. This is more like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story where two different philosophies clashed repeatedly.

The GameCube was a response to the underwhelming sales of the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo focused on getting more third party support. They succeeded at that, but ended up selling even fewer consoles than before. The GBA connectivity was more or less a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from PS2 and Xbox by leveraging their dominance of the handheld market, but the idea didn't gain any traction.

With the Wii Nintendo went back to the drawing board and looked at the NES for inspiration. What they came up with was so ass-backwards from what they were supposed to do according to conventional wisdom that it was declared that Wii would be Nintendo's last console. Wii isn't a continuation of the GameCube, but that's exactly what made it so successful.

The Wii U was Miyamoto taking the reins and reviving his beloved GameCube. In Iwata Asks, Miyamoto repeatedly says things along the lines of "the marketing was at fault". Miyamoto seriously believed that the GameCube was correct and only happened to be a victim of unfortunate circumstances. You are absolutely correct that Wii U picks up core ideas of the GameCube, but Wii U was never meant to be a stop gap console. Nintendo expected it to be as successful as Wii at least. Wii U solely existed because of Miyamoto's desire and his belief that the GC was great, and being able to convince the board of directors of this mindset. The same holds true for the Nintendo 3DS; Iwata Asks has Iwata laughing after saying that Nintendo has always failed when they tried 3D stuff, but this time it had to be the right time for 3D.

The first thing Nintendo did with Switch was to remove Miyamoto from the design process. Just like Wii was a rejection of the GC direction, so is Switch a rejection of Wii U. Switch isn't a two-screen console. When Nintendo talked about NX, they made it clear that a drastic change would be coming, and Switch is really nothing like Wii U.

It is correct to say that Switch is deliberate and was carefully planned, but the console is not the result of a roadmap that Nintendo conceived in the early 2000s. It's the consequence of a different design philosophy completely and utterly failing. If this had been planned all along, then Miyamoto would have maintained his position in the company, but he's been put in a better form of retirement.

Whew! I’m glad someone else said it. And you said it a lot better than I would have.

Not to diminish entirely from the work the original poster put into the article; but yeah, I agree with the Rol post I am quoting. I would call the Switch more like the Wii (and NES, by extension), particularly because it is doing something fresh and new with its philosophy; aiming at an uncontested Blue Ocean marketplace with its hybridized approach to playing software. Also a very sleek rectangular design (I’d love to see a white and blue version). It is a more Iwata-style console, in other words.

 

Yes it's right. The op is great but a bit misleaded. The first mistake is to forget about the portable scene. Nintendo keeps the cash flow with their portables. NES, SNES, GB,, GBA, WII, DS and Switch are business choices of old nintendo. N64, GC, WIIU and 3DS are business choices of the new nintendo. Ironically, these have Miyamoto's involvement.



Yes it's right. The op is great but a bit misleaded. The first mistake is to forget about the portable scene. Nintendo keeps the cash flow with their portables. NES, SNES, GB,, GBA, WII, DS and Switch are business choices of old nintendo. N64, GC, WIIU and 3DS are business choices of the new nintendo. Ironically, these have Miyamoto's involvement.

Explain. How are NES, SNES, GB, GBA, Wii, DS, and Switch business choices of old Nintendo? How are the other consoles choices of new Nintendo? 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Flilix said:
I don't have anything to say about this but I find it kinda sad that no one wants to post in this thread in which you seem to have put quite a lot of effort

Thanks for getting the ball rolling.  I'm glad I bumped this yesterday.  I did put quite a bit of effort into creating it, so it was disappointing to see that it flew under the radar the way it did at first.  

dgboweniii said:
However they got here, and as you state and brilliantly show it was apparently intentional... Nintendo has really hit this one out of the park, the Switch is a game changer, and now sony and MS will have to fall in line with the next gen, hybrids all around.

Great post sir.

 

GuyDuke said:
This is a rather excellent thread. You deserve praise for your work and your opinion is backed by fair arguments. It makes me lean into the belief that this was Nintendo's endgame, awesome!

I really had a good read. I hope more people get to read your post.

 

ThisGuyFooks said:
We need more people like you on this site my man.

Great, Great Post.

I will be posting my opinion later today.

 

Ivant said:
Excellent read,

I also think the second screen of the wii u was horrifically underrated,

During the switch build up, they said there may in future be backwards compatability with old Nintendo controllers, and I really hope they mean the game pad.

That would open up the wii u back catalogue for those who didn't adopt the console, add functionality for future games (Map / inventory screens, think fallout 4 virtual boy) as well as the entire catalogue of DS, 3ds and new 3ds games.

With the joycons there should be no need to go back and add compatibility to wii motes, all that tech is there already, and with more buttons!

It would be great however to give those wii u owners and unexpected boon, as well as birth another extra peripheral for switch owners to buy, even if it were a smaller screen / controller.

 

Hedra42 said:

Gamecube was supposed to have been 3D capable as well, so I seem to remember reading, some years ago. You would have attached a special screen to it to achieve 3D, but it was scrapped as it would have been too expensive.

Excellent OP, and it shows how they're always experimenting with features that end up going in 1 or 2 consoles ahead in some form or other.

 

zorg1000 said:
Great post and i do agree with you to an extent but rather than saying it was "premeditated", i would say its more like Nintendo likes to go back and revisit various ideas that didnt take off for one reason or another.

An example outside of the ones you detail would be the dual screen idea for DS which was originally used with Game & Watch.

Thanks much to everybody for taking the time to read my post and for the compliments as well.  This was something that had been on my mind for a while after the Switch launch.  I've hypothesized it in much shorter form in a few posts before and though it deserved a thread of its own.  I'm glad I took the time to post it now.  



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
No, it wasn't. This is more like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story where two different philosophies clashed repeatedly.

The GameCube was a response to the underwhelming sales of the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo focused on getting more third party support. They succeeded at that, but ended up selling even fewer consoles than before. The GBA connectivity was more or less a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from PS2 and Xbox by leveraging their dominance of the handheld market, but the idea didn't gain any traction.

With the Wii Nintendo went back to the drawing board and looked at the NES for inspiration. What they came up with was so ass-backwards from what they were supposed to do according to conventional wisdom that it was declared that Wii would be Nintendo's last console. Wii isn't a continuation of the GameCube, but that's exactly what made it so successful.

The Wii U was Miyamoto taking the reins and reviving his beloved GameCube. In Iwata Asks, Miyamoto repeatedly says things along the lines of "the marketing was at fault". Miyamoto seriously believed that the GameCube was correct and only happened to be a victim of unfortunate circumstances. You are absolutely correct that Wii U picks up core ideas of the GameCube, but Wii U was never meant to be a stop gap console. Nintendo expected it to be as successful as Wii at least. Wii U solely existed because of Miyamoto's desire and his belief that the GC was great, and being able to convince the board of directors of this mindset. The same holds true for the Nintendo 3DS; Iwata Asks has Iwata laughing after saying that Nintendo has always failed when they tried 3D stuff, but this time it had to be the right time for 3D.

The first thing Nintendo did with Switch was to remove Miyamoto from the design process. Just like Wii was a rejection of the GC direction, so is Switch a rejection of Wii U. Switch isn't a two-screen console. When Nintendo talked about NX, they made it clear that a drastic change would be coming, and Switch is really nothing like Wii U.

It is correct to say that Switch is deliberate and was carefully planned, but the console is not the result of a roadmap that Nintendo conceived in the early 2000s. It's the consequence of a different design philosophy completely and utterly failing. If this had been planned all along, then Miyamoto would have maintained his position in the company, but he's been put in a better form of retirement.

I knew you in particular would disagree with my hypothesis!  :P  

Anyways, regarding the Wii not being a continuation of the GameCube is not entirely true.  While they play very differently, the Wii concept was still originally going to be a GameCube peripheral.  I've heard as a knock against the Wii's power that internally the Wii is "2 Gamecube's strapped together".  And then there is the fact that when you open the top of the Wii, you find a GameCube smiling back at you:

The Wii was very much an extension of the GameCube.  They just managed to hide it enough, so that it wouldn't have a tainted perception associated with it from the start.  It could have been called GameCube 2.  Then Wii U could have been GameCube 3, or would they have mucked it up anyway and called it GameCube U?  *shudders*



RolStoppable said:
No, it wasn't. This is more like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story where two different philosophies clashed repeatedly.

The GameCube was a response to the underwhelming sales of the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo focused on getting more third party support. They succeeded at that, but ended up selling even fewer consoles than before. The GBA connectivity was more or less a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from PS2 and Xbox by leveraging their dominance of the handheld market, but the idea didn't gain any traction.

With the Wii Nintendo went back to the drawing board and looked at the NES for inspiration. What they came up with was so ass-backwards from what they were supposed to do according to conventional wisdom that it was declared that Wii would be Nintendo's last console. Wii isn't a continuation of the GameCube, but that's exactly what made it so successful.

The Wii U was Miyamoto taking the reins and reviving his beloved GameCube. In Iwata Asks, Miyamoto repeatedly says things along the lines of "the marketing was at fault". Miyamoto seriously believed that the GameCube was correct and only happened to be a victim of unfortunate circumstances. You are absolutely correct that Wii U picks up core ideas of the GameCube, but Wii U was never meant to be a stop gap console. Nintendo expected it to be as successful as Wii at least. Wii U solely existed because of Miyamoto's desire and his belief that the GC was great, and being able to convince the board of directors of this mindset. The same holds true for the Nintendo 3DS; Iwata Asks has Iwata laughing after saying that Nintendo has always failed when they tried 3D stuff, but this time it had to be the right time for 3D.

The first thing Nintendo did with Switch was to remove Miyamoto from the design process. Just like Wii was a rejection of the GC direction, so is Switch a rejection of Wii U. Switch isn't a two-screen console. When Nintendo talked about NX, they made it clear that a drastic change would be coming, and Switch is really nothing like Wii U.

It is correct to say that Switch is deliberate and was carefully planned, but the console is not the result of a roadmap that Nintendo conceived in the early 2000s. It's the consequence of a different design philosophy completely and utterly failing. If this had been planned all along, then Miyamoto would have maintained his position in the company, but he's been put in a better form of retirement.

Agreed, though the thread was a good read.

I think the Wii U was always originally supposed to be like the Switch, but because it was too expensive and harsh on battery life at the time, they nerfed to what we know now. So in that way, maybe they've had this roadmap planned since the early 2010's, though that doesn't mean they expected the Wii U to fail, never mind as hard as it did - but I feel in no way they've been planning this for over 15 years.



Mandalore76 said:
"0" engagement. A new personal best.

Sad. This is a good OP.

I disagree though. But good thread.



Well, this is new.

Read.

Mandalore76 said:
RolStoppable said:
No, it wasn't. This is more like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story where two different philosophies clashed repeatedly.

The GameCube was a response to the underwhelming sales of the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo focused on getting more third party support. They succeeded at that, but ended up selling even fewer consoles than before. The GBA connectivity was more or less a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from PS2 and Xbox by leveraging their dominance of the handheld market, but the idea didn't gain any traction.

With the Wii Nintendo went back to the drawing board and looked at the NES for inspiration. What they came up with was so ass-backwards from what they were supposed to do according to conventional wisdom that it was declared that Wii would be Nintendo's last console. Wii isn't a continuation of the GameCube, but that's exactly what made it so successful.

The Wii U was Miyamoto taking the reins and reviving his beloved GameCube. In Iwata Asks, Miyamoto repeatedly says things along the lines of "the marketing was at fault". Miyamoto seriously believed that the GameCube was correct and only happened to be a victim of unfortunate circumstances. You are absolutely correct that Wii U picks up core ideas of the GameCube, but Wii U was never meant to be a stop gap console. Nintendo expected it to be as successful as Wii at least. Wii U solely existed because of Miyamoto's desire and his belief that the GC was great, and being able to convince the board of directors of this mindset. The same holds true for the Nintendo 3DS; Iwata Asks has Iwata laughing after saying that Nintendo has always failed when they tried 3D stuff, but this time it had to be the right time for 3D.

The first thing Nintendo did with Switch was to remove Miyamoto from the design process. Just like Wii was a rejection of the GC direction, so is Switch a rejection of Wii U. Switch isn't a two-screen console. When Nintendo talked about NX, they made it clear that a drastic change would be coming, and Switch is really nothing like Wii U.

It is correct to say that Switch is deliberate and was carefully planned, but the console is not the result of a roadmap that Nintendo conceived in the early 2000s. It's the consequence of a different design philosophy completely and utterly failing. If this had been planned all along, then Miyamoto would have maintained his position in the company, but he's been put in a better form of retirement.

I knew you in particular would disagree with my hypothesis!  :P  

Anyways, regarding the Wii not being a continuation of the GameCube is not entirely true.  While they play very differently, the Wii concept was still originally going to be a GameCube peripheral.  I've heard as a knock against the Wii's power that internally the Wii is "2 Gamecube's strapped together".  And then there is the fact that when you open the top of the Wii, you find a GameCube smiling back at you:

The Wii was very much an extension of the GameCube.  They just managed to hide it enough, so that it wouldn't have a tainted perception associated with it from the start.  It could have been called GameCube 2.  Then Wii U could have been GameCube 3, or would they have mucked it up anyway and called it GameCube U?  *shudders*

You're talking about the Wii being an extension of Gamecube in terms of hardware though. What Rol is referring to is more the philosophy behind the system.

In that regard they are polar opposites; GC was a red ocean console designed to go head-to-head with its rivals and court third parties. Wii by contrast was a blue ocean system that went its own way and offered something different and distinct from Playstation and Xbox.



Nintendo took it from SEGA actually. Nomad was a portable SEGA Genesis that also hooked up to the TV and had a port for a second player. Dreamcast had the VMU's plus Dreamcast like the GBA link was able to connect to the Neo Geo Pocket. SEGA was the first with the idea and the first to fail. Nintendo continued it and as Switch shows..the first to seemingly succeed.